About Me

Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. Author of FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE SECULAR STATE (2012), HUMANITY ENHANCED (2014), and THE MYSTERY OF MORAL AUTHORITY (2016).

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Be careful what you tweet

Over at Jack of Kent's blog you can follow the latest outrage against freedom of speech in the UK, where Mr Paul Chambers was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This provides, inter alia:

A person is guilty of an offence if he— .
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

This is a shockingly illiberal law, but the way it's been applied in this case is even more so. Chambers was convicted for sending a "menacing" message ... in the form of the following intemperate, ill-advised, but surely jocular tweet:

I am therefore satisfied, so that I am sure, that the defendant sent the message via “Twitter” and it was of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live. Furthermore I am satisfied the defendant was, at the very least, aware that this was of a menacing nature and I find him guilty of the offence.

The case is now being appealed. Hopefully this "disgraceful and illiberal judgment" (per Jack of Kent) will be overturned.

Was there actual evidence that he had planned to blow anything "sky high"? Or is that not even needed?

Note the judge's phrase "in the times in which we live". That implies he has bought the Bush/ Blair /Howard panic-mongering that we are facing unusual or unprecedented threats "in the times in which we live", as if we are any more threatened than any other age (WWII? Cold War?)

It seems like a stupid thing to do, given that the authorities are more-or-less obliged to investigate all "threats" (ie. they can't summarily dismiss this or that one as a joke). But having found it was just a stupid joke, it seems like something along the lines of a misdemeanour for mischief would be the maximum appropriate penalty, not full criminal prosecution.

"A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent."

Surely I must be misreading this -- from the way it looks, if send a somewhat inappropriate personal email to a friend (i.e., "a message of an obscene character"), I'm suddenly a criminal of some kind? Surely that can't be correct.